Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship

You are not listening and paid nearly no attention to the lengthy post and its arguments I made, this is obvious. In John 16:13 Christ said before his departure, "I will not leave you comfortless, howbeit, when he the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into "ALL" truth and show you things to come"Now this implies that All truth had not been revealed as God had seen fit and the rest of the information would come at a later date. The Gospel does not have to be all in one place or time for it to be the truth of God or the Gospel.My guess is that you are being obstinate, unless you would like to respond to the above verse. We have been over this 100 times now AM, the evidence does not consist of Just Pauls words. You are being deliberatley evasive.
My question is, How can “the Gospel message” continue if only a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is valid? Then have faith in the evidence that supports the word of God if you do not like Paul.The Gospel message primarily is the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ, this is the core of the Gospel and its heart, that believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Both the Gospels and Pauls letters affirm this fact. "I determined not to know anything amoung you except JesusChrist and him crucified". Now this is not to say that other divine truth was not coming from the Holy Spirit until it was complete.All of the Gospel message is valid, but this does not mean that how and what God does over the years and his method has to always be the same. Read Heb 1:1 Yes he did, in John 16:13 and then in the rest of the inspired documents and other writings of the inspired men. No truth changed AM, just the method of transmission. In other words I have all the spiritual knowledge that the early Churh did, it simply in a Book now instead of being transmitted to us from the medium of the gifts. In the passages I have given you, deal with them (John16:13).
You have NOT touched the argument that Paul was commisioned by Christ to fulfill the rest of the mission and communicate the rest of the truth to the Gentiles, the Church and the world.If John 16:13 is truth and Paul was an Apostle, it Christs words through Paul and the other Apostles.1Peter1:
10.Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care,
11.trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
12.It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.Here it is again from another Apostle after Christ's acension. I see you ignoring my very specific arguments and passages offered to demonstrate that because the Gospel was preached a certain way at one time all of its exact parts have to remain exacally the same for the the truth not to be therein still contained there. This is ludicrous. I have no less the knowledge than the early church did, its simply revealed to me in a different way. Whats the problem?What knowledge am I lacking if it is revealed through gifts or a book, if the book, its witnesses and its testimonies and it accuracy is reliable. There is nothing lacking in the Gospel message we have that they had, its simply that after the ascension more and specific information was revealed about certain facts or information that was not specifically delt with by Christ on all topics. Heck, look at Pauls discourses on marriage, virgins, widows, etc, etc, etc.When the woman reached out to touch Jesus in the crowd he said this would be preached as a part of the Gospel, wherever it goes. So I was not there to see this first hand, so what, is it less true because of that point?Part of your problem is in understanding what the "Gospel" is or is not. The Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ and those things that surround those specific events. Now its ok to call the rest of his words Gospel because all of these things are symbiotic in nature, however, nowhere is it stated that God is required to always do things exacally the same all the time.Going to work again, will get to any responses you have laterD Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

And he did not say that somethings would not change in there methods or applications, eitherI dont know how I could make this any simpler than I have, I have done it logically from the example of the buisness world and I have explained it from the scriptures.In debate AM it is ones responsibilty to respond to the direct arguments being made. In this instance it would be your responsibility to demonstrate that Paul was not commissioned, appointed and chosen by Christ as the scriptures clearly indicate.Secondly, it would be your task to demonstrate that John 16:13 does not mean that what the Apostles spoke in later epistles could and should not be considered Christs own words and by his authority, Christ is the one who gave them this authority, correct? Pay close attention to verse 10, it is the exact statement in John 16:13.AM simply repeating over and over that Christ did not speak of the end or alterations of things, is not answering the argument. You would need to demonstrate why these Apostles afterwards did not speak on Christs behalf as Christ clearly indicated they would.In many instances the Apostles amplified or altered due to time and limitations doctrines or ideas as the Holy Spirit saw fit to accomplish his tasks.1Cor7: Pay close attention to verse ten again. Here is an example of where the Apostle exercised his right and authority to amplify a teaching, something Christ had not directly addressed. yet Paul acknowledges that it is God who is actually speaking here by the Holy Spirit.Here it is again from the Apostle John. Pay close attention to verses 18 and 19. Write what you have seen, WHAT IS NOW AND WHAT WILL TAKE PLACE LATER. These things were not mentioned in his earthly ministry, yet he wants them KNOWN now and later. To alter through permission and authority is not nullifiying anything. your task is to demonstrate from scripture that I am wrong about them having been given this right. Yes it is true the Apostles altered by time and methods and circumstances some doctrines, but it was not them doing this but Christ himeself as I pointed out in the quotes from 1Cor 7 and Rev 2. Remember these words AM,"and whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth will be losed in Heaven"Sounds like they had no little authority to speak by, through and from Christ's authority. Altering or modifying is not equivolent to nulification. What kind of "sinks" did they have back then for them to lay there hands on?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

There is nothing wrong with diminished or disregarded if God sees fit for it to such. The Old covenant was replaced with the New because it had fulfilled its purposes. The gifts throught men vanished because they had served thier funtion and were replaced with another method. You are trying way to hard to discredit a simple principle. You have got to be kidding me. If the following were the only passage it would be the only one I need to demonstrate this point, yet I have provided you with numerous others that you refuse to touch."whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven"Your simple task form scrupture would be to demonstrate this did not happen and that they were not given this authority through the Holy Spirit. No amount of passages of what Jesus said or did will refute this fact. This is an odd statement. Its almost as if you believe Jesus' words as truth and reject Paul's. Since I know you do not believe anything Jesus said, due to the fact that you have said he wrote nothing down, therefore it cannot be trusted, why should we trust him or Paul, why would Jesus' words be anymore corroborated than Pauls, this makes no sense as an argument.Most of the following qoutes from Jesus I agree with but they have nothing to dowith the topic at hand and wehther the Apostles were authorized to speal on Christ's behalf. You have deliberatley ignored all the fine things Paul has said about women in his epistles and you have extracted a few that have nothing to do with thier nature, character and place in society. Pauls instructions in these instances have to with thier place in worship and these instructions come directly fromthe Holy Spirit himself, as has been argued and demonstrated in this post."Husbands love you wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it""Husbands love you wives as you would love youself", etc, etc, etc.The New Testament and specifacally Pauls letters elavate the status of women greater than any society of that day would even consider. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts in scripture, not worthy of a reply. Jesus made it claer that those that "do the will of his father in heaven" are his brother and sisters. Gods plan and station for men and women in society have nothing to do with thier spiritual standing before God, all are equal in Gods eyes depending on thier service to him.Jesus never indicated that women should NOT be silent and in subjection. He was simply trying to remove them from the degrading status that MAN and SCOCIETY had placed them in, one of slavery. Part of what Jesus shared before the crucifixtion is that the Apostles would have authority to loose and bind and I have already demonstrated from scripture that this meant not only more or less but to radify and nulify as in the case of 1Cor13. If you will keep in mind AM, I am not saying that the Apostles nulified any "spiritual truths" or things of this nature but things that changed in "method" or "purpose", there is a vast difference.The "gifts" that the spirit gave are still here, how we recieve those gifts of knowledge, patience , understanding, blessings, etc, etc have change from the method we recieve them. Healing does not come from the laying on of a mans hands by a miraculous means anymore, but directly from God. I am only speaking of methods and methodology.All of the scriptures you qoute are truth and I agree with them, you are simply missing the point. It is true that no spiritual truth that Jesus spoke was nulified. To change a physical method of application is not to change its truth or value. We dont worship God in a temple anymore but in our hearts, minds and spirits (John4:24). In other words we are not required to make animal sacrifieces as a part the Spiritual. And my intention here is not to imply they did not worship in spirit but that we are not requires to sacrifice animals, the method changed. Again, it almost sounds as if you believe Jesus, heart, mind and soul. Do you think he actually said these things and that they are to be believed. If you do not, you should be able to see the immediate contradiction in your argument. If we cannot believe one why should we believe the other, this makes no sense. But this is the least of your problem in establishing this line of reasoning as my arguments above indicate.AM wwe can take a break if this is starting to ware you out, we can go at our own pace, it seems as others have lost interest here, justlet me know.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Why, when God is in charge. I suppose you god cannot accomplish these simple tasks One that can be forceably and accurately demonstrated. I would have to see the others you are refering to, or are they a part of your other imaginary stuff. Hey, let me ask you a question, where did you get all of the above facts from, all of your above discourse must have come from somewhere and I am going to bet it was from the "scriptures", that book we are talking about. Now you are on the right track, you know the one that tells you that God is a Spirit, unless you learned this from some other source. Maybe you could provide me with a source of how you know that which leaves the body goes back to God, oh thats right you have no source outside the scriptures, other than you imagination. You still dont have this logic thing down yet do you ole buddy.If you you can take the time to explain what you did above, even in sarcasm its very simple isnt it AM. You are right he could not have made it any simpler than to put it on paper, then back it up with facts. What does it mean when Christ says to his Apostles, "whatsoever you bind and lose will be written in heaven and earth", etc, etc, etcI dont see how it could be much simpler, do you? Take a stab at this very "difficult" passage and see what you come up with AM. We can get you some assistance if you need it, perhaps an seventh grade Bible student could help you. You still dont have this argumentation thing down do you? When we are discussing scripture for scripture I am assuming that what you qoute you atleast for the sake of the argument believe it to be true in that moment to compare it somewhere else in scripture, if you want to discuss the Holy Spirit being a fact or the authenticity of the scriptures, those are seperate issues and seperate discussions. Do you see how arumentation works AM.When you qoute Jesus for argument purposes to counterwhat Paul said, I am assuming you believe at least for argument sake what Christ said was true at present, if you do not that is another issue. Do you see how argumentation works now AM? Please try and keep the two issues seperate. When we are discussing the Holy Spirit in an argument I am assuming you believe him to be actual for argument sake.My point from scripture was that Christ promised the Apostles guidance from the HS after his departure, true or not AM?No you need to qoute verses from Jesus to which indicate that the Apostles would not recieve guidance and ones that show that alteration and nulification are not possible. Quoting random general scriptures about believing Jesus and his words do not demonstrate your point. "Deny" and "may very well be" are nonsensical terms applied together, one is absolute while the other is speculative.If you could reproduce the gnostic gospels in nearly thier entirity in the writings of the those that were contemporary with the Apotles and shortly thereafter, like you can the NT, the Gospel of Thomas may lend some credibility. The reason my simple friend that these books are almost nonexsitent in those wrtings is that they knew what the correct and authoratative ones were. When you are in time close to facts AM, there is no need to keep defending the obvious. 500 years from now there may be those that question the "signers" of the declaration of Independance, but for now no one really doubts it correct, because we are close to the events.Quoting one of these gnostic Gospels then would be like quoting the National Enquirer today to establish some facts about present day truth, sorry AM, "thats the facts". This is not the point. Thie point is, if you can without quoting random scriptures of Christ show "contradiction" in these alterations, you would have established your case, this you simply cannot do. For example, if you could quote specifically a passage that actually demonstrates what Paul said in 1Cor 13 about the passage and vanishing of miraculous gifts, in Christ's words, demonstrated your point, this simply cannot be done. If you you think I am being obstinate, then quote a specific passage, not a general one about believing what jesus has to say or that his words will never fail, or some such. Really!!!, go hit your wife in the mouth AM and see who responds ,the police or the pastor. A comment as that above in this liberal society makes no logical sense. The statement above has not been true for many many years. The truth is that society dictates what a womens or anybody elses place will be. As God is always supplanted in civilizations and societies eventually, it is hard to recognize any of his influence after a while.Bertot writesYou forgot to quote the rest of the passage in Eph 5, verese 25 thru 33. Did you do this deliberatley? Here is the rest just in case you missed it:Wives and Husbands
5:22-6:9pp -- Col 3:18-4:1
22.Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
23.For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24.Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25.Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26.to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27.and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28.In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29.After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church--
30.for we are members of his body.
31."For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."
32.This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33.However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.Order and structure in God and his creation, imagine that?Question AM, why when you and your wife get in your car to go somewhere why do you drive the car? Is this a simple fact society or a "natural" thing AM, one of respect and understanding of how nature works. Gods order in general in the Chruch is follows a design even as nature has its own design. In Gods plan for those created in his image the stronger (not mentally) serves the weaker ) and takes care of the weaker vessel. In nature the stronger takes advantage of the weaker, yet even in that there is order and structure.Question what part of 1Tim 2:13:14 do you not agree with, which part is not true AM?I know you believe this a new concept advocated by Paul but it not. Remember this passage from Genesis, "and your desire shall be for you husband, yet he shall rule over you", not new AM..If you dont like Gods order find another one, as I suspect you already have. As I suspected, you found no words from Jesus to counter what Paul said but a twisting of Christ words ". What Christ actually said was "judge not according to appearance but "judge" righteous judgement". Now I wonder where correct judgement would come from, maybe Gods own words through inspiration of theHoly Spirit.Silence in the Chrurches is not the same as silent in society, this is Pauls indication, not everywhere. Further, the silence is not to shut you mouth and never say anything but one of subjection to the order God has established. How many women priests and High priest were there in the OT AM.Here is a parallel passage AM. "I suffer not a women to teach nor to usurp authority over the man".. Under consideration here is the Church and teaching in the Church, not society in general.. This does not mean for her to not say a single word in the worship or class, it is simply a observation of the design and order God has built into nature and his Church, for her not to override his authority given by God. It would be the same if I were to speak a false word against an Elder of the Church without witnesses or verification, I would be disrespecting the authority God gave and placed on him. he is my spiritual superior not my human better, see the difference, these things have nothing to do with society in general.More in a minuteD Bertot.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Thanks for the admission in your and you gods weakness to accomplish simple task, that is sad indeed.Free Will is an amazing thing AM, to answer your question, yes it can. Atleast on the subject we are speaking about I have done this numerous times in many ways, Ill let any reader decide for themselves. Where did you get the exact information about God creating anything, did you see him do this. Where did you get the information and how would you demonstrate that the life in a tree goes back to God after it allegedly leaves a tree. We can do this all day AM. LOL, I have to admit I did not see this one coming, that is very comical AM. You have shut off any objections to this kind of evidence. I simply cannot respond to the force of this powerful argument. Give me a break AMWhat exacally is an "animating being"? Great. Lets see if there is any evidence to support this delusional Paul guy. No, all of the NT was completed by the end of the first century at which time the spiritual gifts were still in full operation along with oral tradition through inspiration of the Holy Spirt. It makes no difference what some council did in 325, good for them. Congradulations you have found an instance where Jesus confirms what I have been saying to not only Peter but the rest of the Apostles, you making progress. In John 16, Matt 18 in conjuction with Acts 1 and chapter 2 we can actually read about this event.Acts chapter 1. Would you say from a scriptural standpoint the promise of the comforter was fulfilled (John 16:13), a simple yes or no will sufficeWould not the book of Acts confirm not only this fact but Paul's contentions about Apostleship and his authority. Here we have a source in Acts of an corroboration other than Paul himself, eh. Or should we throw out Luke the physician and historianD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Am I have just read your last post and I dont see anything "new" that requires an immediate response, just your usual misunderstandings, complaining and gripping about things you clearly dont understand, ha ha. Therefore I have got to get numerous things done today I will get to this last nonsensical post of yours as quickly as I can this evening. Hold if you will and I will got back with you.D Bertot

I understand what you are saying here. However, this ignores the fact, that it is simply ignorant to pick and choose out of what someone may have said or not said. If you pick and choose what you want and reject the other things attributed to him, like his claims of Deity and belief in Hell and the such like, it demonstrates you have no understanding of how to proceed objectively
and rationally. Example, if we can not have confidence in the things he claimed and the things he taught on Hell, then it is completley idiotic to assume he could have been correct on any other thing, or that he even made those statements. You pull out the things that fit you theories and reject the others, this is a nonsensical way to proceed at best.This began by me asking you to provide a statement in scripture that required blind faith. When you presented Mark16:15-17, I demonstrated from scriptures that the Apostles had and recieved inspiration from Christ and God to speak on thier behalf, and in fact that it was not the Apostles but Christ Himself (Rev 2) accomplishing these additions and changes, to the methods and not doctrines, issues and truths.You still have not provided any argument or scripture that will suffice to demonstrate that these changes were not authorized and accepted. You have not demonstrated that even nulification is not justified. If God decides to alter or change a method and scripture indicates the method and this was accomplished, then you a huge task to demonstrate "from" scripture that this was not the case. For the same reason you use Jesus' words in an argument as if they were true. If you dont believe all of his words its simply silly for me to believe you accept anything else he had to say. with regard to deminishing or nulifying.. In other words what reason is there to believe that his promise of the Holy Spirit later should be considered as valid or truthful? What right would he have to ask us to keep his commandments, you know, the verese you quoted. It is logical when discussing scripture for scripture to assume atleast in that context the truthfulness of the statements, if you do not it becomes a farce.This would be like me discussing the Eden narrative with you and myself picking and choosing out of the narrative what I want to believe or not believe and not simply trying to interpret the narrative itself. I assume the truthfulness of the narrative, wether I accept it as metaphor or literal, then proceed with the interpretation.If you are not willing to assume even for the sake of argument the possibility of the truthfulness of statement in scripture, it would be idioic to continue a expanded discussion of what the Holy Spirit did or did not do, what he said or did not say, what he altered or nulified, etc, etc . Tthat is a silly way to proceed, at every turn we would be stopping an questioning even the exitence of such a thing, do you see what I am saying? AM I dont mind having a discussion about the HS, real or not. At present we are only trying to decide weather or not the scriptures contradict themselves, weather or not Pauls words are in conflict with Christ. Do you see the difference between these two discussions at present. I cant fathom why this is so hard to understand. Thank you. Now since this promise was actual atleast from scripture, would it not follow that these words were not the Apostles but God's himself? Further, the Gospels do not limit the criteria of this promise to the present Apostles, there is no indication in scripture that it had limitations to the present Apostles, this is you assumption. Could you provide a passage that limits this to the then existing 12. AM it is easy to fabricate fanciful theories about this or that, in this case about Paul. Your one main problem is the book of Acts, Peter himself in his epistles and Church History do not support you unsupported conjecture. Do you realize you have not provided one single piece of verifiable evidence for this outlandish claim. You have not shared anything that I have not demonstrated to be a misunderstanding of scripture. Where in history could even a shred of what you are saying be supported, when the Apostles themselves accepted what he had to say and teach.
Now I have a choice I cantrust AM here or I can trust those closest to the events themselves, the book of acts, Peter and the rest of the NT writers, guess who i pick? Oh yeah that s right, this is where we switch gears and start talking about the nonexistence of Peter, the falsity of the book of Acts and the rest of the NT writers and the extreme prjudice of the early Chruch father. Darn it, I keep forgetting the rules, when AM quotes Jessus he is real and believable, when I quote Jesus, Paul or another NT writer, they are imaginary and undependable authors at best. I really should try anfd pay attention. How do you know what is in my mind unless I reveal it to you. I do not "deny" the "possibilty" of it as a parable anymore than I do the book of Job or Luke 16. However, in my mind I see other evidence to the opposite, than your interpretation. The first of which is the author of the narrative, the same one that wrote the rest of the Torah, seems to think it was actual. This is not denying anything "absolutley", get your facts straight. And the National Enquier has some facts in it as well, but do you accept it as a realiable source AM. The facts are that earliest Christians, the Apostles, new what the truth was in a aritten form, this is why the gnostic gospels cannot be nearly reproduced in thier writings. Sorry AM that just the way it is. OK, no problem. "Howbeit when he the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into "all" truth, and will show you things to come."If they did not have all truth it follows that more was to come. Changing a method of doing something does not constitue alteration of the truth or nulification of its precepts. Expansion of truth is not alteration, either. And you are accusing me wanting to argue the most innocuous items of the English language. None of Jesus' spiritual truths changed by application of the Holy Spirit only the method of application. I dont see why this is so hard to understand.
The gifts given by the HS, AM, were not themselves spiritual truth but the item they related or communicated. The "method" of application faded, the truth remained in a different fashion. This does not constitute alteration of spiritual truth. Wow I cant believe you cant see that. The Comforter altered nothing of Spiitual truth, or altered any of Jesus' truths. God , Christ and the Holy Spirit are in ONE purpose an understanding, how in the world would that happen anyway, that they would contradict eachother"Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. Please go back into history my friend and show me where man has not generally taken the lead in relationships in or out of the Church. Heck go back into history and show me where man has not taken the lead in any or most affairs. I am not trying to sound dominant or stereotypical, that just the way it is by design or creation. I choose creation. now AM is this society dictating this or is it the natural order. Any thinking person can see it is a natural order. This natural order can be disrearded or ignored or in the case of nature sometimes not follow its exact pattern, but that does not mean the general rule is not there. I have seen the movie" Island of the Amazon women", and I would very much like to visit this Island where they all look like., Linda Carter an hit you with sticks when you disobey them, but this is not reality.Jesus' statement has to do with Gods people with eachother not what you are to do in civil matters, ie, "render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers and unto God what is Gods". These are two different things and you are inavertently transposing the two.
I was not speaking about Chruch rule verses civil, but a womens relationship to a man in the Church and thier marraige. Pauls exlamation of submission has nothing to do with domination in the sense you are trying to represent it. You are equating submission with slavery, nothing of the sort is contemplated in his Epistles. As a matter of fact his words make women equal with man, except from the design God has established from a spiritual standpoint. Notice Pauls words, "Husbands love you wives as you would love your own body", "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it" does this sound like domination and slavery to you? The stronger serves the weaker.The institutions of marraige, the family and the Chruch are institutions appointed by God. It is not unreasonable that there would be a rule and structure of leadership in them. These are not Pauls rules and guidelines at all, they are the LordsChrist acknowledged the order God had set up in the temple service and its relationship to women, Christ had ample opportunity to overide these principle should he wanted to. Paul was simply stating throught the Holy Spirit and order that was established long before he came on the scene. Were Moses and God also descriminatory in the old covenant, or was Moses simply followiing a spiritual rule set up by God himself. Do I need to bring back ICANT and have him show you once again the simalarites between the DSS, MT and Septuagint?ICANT writes post 13 of Eden 1: More accuately your response does not fit reality. I brought this up to demonstrate a simple point and you are avoiding it like a plauge. Is it a general rule that men take the lead in situations, relationships, circumstances, etc. Especially in relationships across the world. Sorry AM, it is ironic that you claim "natural" all the time but cannot see this very simple obvious fact. Evasion AM does not become you.It occured to me that if you are not willing to see such a obvious point in this instanceyou will probably not be reasonable in any other simple examples of life or scripture. You know the answer to my above question you simply want to avoid it at all costs.Christ and the Apostle Paul simply try to bring this simple principle of our roles before God into proper perspective in thier lives and writings. Christ and the Apostles removed it from domination and slavery to respectability and reality. If you do not like Gods plan in nature and his word find another one, as I suspect you have already.bertot wroteBy all means my friend please elaborate and show me why this is nonsense, from nature and scripture. I cant wait to hear this gem of wisdom. I believe ICANT has already addressed most if not all of these issues. Who said anything about domination in the sense you are using it. Even representation means "to act or speak for". Wow that sounds alot like Pauls words, eh. The women is silent in represenaive situations or she shows the proper respect for the mans lead, as God has designed it.Also, I would assume there are more definitions than 'representation', could I see the others the Hebrew dictionary offers for this expression, in there order. Tell me what exacally is Gods order and where do you learn of it from
? What did he not make himself clear about? A person can make a decision if he or she has little, some, no ,or absolutly complete information. Information is not the primary factor in making a choice, it helps, but its not the deciding factor, your will is the deciding factor.
AM even with the threat of prison and the death peanalty people still choose to act incorrectly, this shots your coercion theory in the proverbial foot. This is nothing against you personally but this is the most idiotic postion I have ever heard anyone try and defend, that people dont have free will or choice. Even in America freedom is not the right to doanything you want but that which is withing the law. I dont see how it could be any simplier. Do you know for a fact that if the universe is infinite as you suggested that it could not be a product of itself? Impressive beyond belief Shrewd and calculating people do not suffer and die for a cause that would bring them pain, suffering and and imprisonment constantly. Another nonsensical response from AM In this instance history corroborates my position, if any of the Apostolic fathers are to be believed. Oh yeah bertot, dont you know they are all liars and fakes!!! Also, Jaywill writes in post 208 of Eden 1: AM writes:So when Jesus promised this he was delusional, phony, fake and idiot, stupid, imaginary, it didnt happen, what exacally should I believe AM.. A qualified yes and that answer is only going to be settled by AM, correct? So you overwhelming brillant conclusion is to compare the NT and the book of Acts to a hollywood movie, and you cant understand why you cant comprehend any of these things.I also suggest that you dont blindly believe either, just review the evidence for its reliability. The first of which is that it has not been discredited with all its facts, history and related information. It gets nothing wrong. Now thats an impressive start. [qs]quote:
7.He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 10.They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
11."Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." If he gave an answer you would say it should not be trusted or accepted as reliable. When we say Jesus spoke you say he never wrote anything down. When we say Moses wrote the Torah you say it was not him. Do you see how your logic works. It doesnt matter what the evidence presented is, you will reject it.So in this instance it was the author that lied about what some imaginary angels said. So why could we trust anyhting the authors said about what Jesus did or did not say?One last thought here before wrapping up. It is interesting that you campare pauls teaching to domination and slavery. Because in neither before marraige or during it does the Apostle command either of the partries that they "have" to get married or command that they "stay" married. He incourages them to stay married but he does not command it. "If the unbelieving wishes to depart let them, in such cases the believer is not under bondage"All captivity is slavery but not all slavery is captivity. I am a slave to my job, family and God because I choose to be, however, I am not a Captive in the sense of the children of Israel in Babylon or the Jews in Germany, they did not have choice to go or stay, they were captives.Paul does not make that kind of state of affairs existent in the marraige bond. If however one chooses to accept that status it should be by Gods rules but they are not "forced" to remain in that situation. That is the difference of what God is saying and what you are trying to make the Apostle say. Paul was a slave (free will) to Christ because he choose to be, not a captive in the respect that he had no choice, see the difference?References:"That which is Perfect"
http://www.bibleweb.com/proveallthings/pat1-23.htm"Did Paul invent Christianity"
http://www.godandscience.org/...l_invented_christianity.htmlWho Founded Christianity - Jesus or St. Paul?Another interesting discussion.
Is soul sleep biblical? Do we go to Heaven when we die?A discourse between Dr. Jaywill and Dr. Autumnman in Eden 1 Two points of interest here and I promise I will quit adding things to this post.Given all the information we do have about Saul or Paul, this question presents itself. Why would a fellow that is persecuting and executing people of a certain "Way" of thinking, all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, aside of the one offered in the book of Acts, change his way of thinking and decide to adopt the Gospel of Christ, or most of what Christ taught and then be willing to suffer all of the same things he was persecuting the 'Way' for and the items attached to it. This would make no logical sense.If one objects and says, well there is no evidence that Paul suffered any of these persecutions or trials, would it not behoove that person to provide atleast some evidence that he was the type of person that is being offered, other than what is indicated in Acts, Pauls Epistles, the rest of the NT and Church history.Second point, why is the Paul of shrewdness and calculation never presented from any historical context or is this view of him ever supported by anyother source than his own writings. If the book of Acts, his epistles and the rest of the NT are not a reliable source about Paul, what are the sources that would present him in the context of a "hijacker" and perverter of Christ's teachings.If there are no sources to determine this type of evidence, outside of the ones we know about, then it would follow, that these are the only reliable sources to begin with. secondly, it would follow that the logical way to proceed, would an examination and comparison of what the OT, Christ, the rest of the Apostles, Paul and the NT teach, correct?D Bertot.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

I agree 100% here, the Gospel is the facts you have set out. AMs contention is that the other teachings of Christ could not be altered or nulified in any respect either. I have tried to make it clear that a change in method does not constitute a change in doctrine or spiritual knowledge.Thanks for you comments I enjoy them and I know AM appreciates thwm as well, even if you guys vehemently disagree, I suppose that is part of the process and fun, it is to me anyway. trying to come to atleast some agreement.Thanks again and please jump in at any time, I am sure AM gets tired of hearing just myself.D Bertot

AM writesHas anyone heard from the Naturalist, Autunman? Its been several days now with no indications of what his status might be.

ICANT writes:Wait a minute here, who is the fence post here you or me, ha ha.D Bertot

Good enough,Ill shoot him an e-mail to see if He is ok.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Am good to hear from you. I will let you respond to the majority of the post and I will respond after your completion.It is good to know there was nothing serious wrong,I was beginning to wonder."You know, some part of a pine tree are eatable" Mr GibbonsCatch you later.D BertotD Bertot

Thats because your are a feeble minded dork, with no energy and even less ability to debate, ha ha. Understood. Also, I have started mounting a response to your last post/s, I will complete them in Word Pad and post them when I am completed. In the meantime your are welcome to finish the other.D Bertot

AM writes It is simply ludicrous to attribute any statement or statements to a person in a particular source and claim that some but not all of those things were said of that person, weather they conform to reality or not, weather they appear to be rational from a human standpoint or not, this is simply not how you establish the reliability of the source in question. However one does not need to involve these types of evidence when strickly examining verse for verse or writer for writers comments to see if there is obvious contradiction.Secondly, what we do in reagard to Gods commands in being forgiving, kind, merciful is seperate from what God does from an eternal justice standpoint. Why would we expect God to be merciful, kind, forgiving but NOT impune Justice and retribution when the time warrents such.. His nature is more than your perceptions of what you thinkhe should be. In a human context how much respect would have for a judge that forgave all incorrect and unconsconable behavior, you would throw him out of his position in a week. What would you expect to happen AM to a person that murdered you child, do we just let it pass?. Come on AM, this is elementary theology. No. the passage says those that are saved will be able to do these things. I do not know the exact time these things faded, I suspect as I have indicated before that they faded with the passage of the Apostles and those that had recieved the Laying on of hands of the Apostles. Also, in those unique situations, where the Lord gave the Baptism of the Holy Spirit to others than the Apostles, Cornelius in Acts 10 and others.
Paul's injunction or spirit guided declaration in 1Cor 13 and the obvious fact that these gifts through men would have not been recognizable after a certain point, would have been a clear indication to the Church that these were no longer present. Again, you are missing the point. the medium is less important than the result or the affect of the gift. Consider a parallel in Acts chapter 2:1-47, a slightly more expanded explanation of Mark 16:15-18. Here the Apostle Peter sets out exacally what it means for God to pour out his spirit on all flesh. Most people that read the passage equate the miraculous or poring out of the Spirit only with the gifts involved. This, so totally misses the point involved. Actually the expression "pour out my Spirit on all flesh", is exacally that which is in involved in the statemnet in Gen, when God tells Abraham, that" throuh his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed" Watch it, "for the promise is unto you you children, them that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call". The promise is not the miraculous only, the method only, but the product the method brings, salvation through Jesus Christ. "Those that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
There is simply no contradiction between Christs, Peters or Pauls words when understood in its entire context and overall picture. The gifts were never meant to remain but salvation through Jesus Christ and the Spirits communication of that message was to remain until the end of time, regardless of the exact method. As I have explained about 4 times now I know what you believe and dont believe. Christ and Paul both believed in the Holy Spirit, I know you do not. However, for the sake of argument maybe we could both assume at present that this is true to see if there is any contradiction in atleast the text itself. This is not an unreasonable or unwarrented way to proceed until such time a it becomes necessary to discuss the supernatural verses the narural again. Surely you can see what I am saying. Not if the narrative you are employing, implies or inculcates a creator or deity, as you have suggested and believe in. I still am not seeing this overwhelming fascination you have with "natural metaphors". Would it not be reasonable for a person to use that which is in front of and common to him, to write a stroy or poem? The author of the Eden narrative did not see them as figurative. Ill take Moses over the Gospel of Thomas, if for no other reason he was close to the narrative itself. That is if I have to choose between the two, or for that matter the inumerable others that percieved it as literal. Did you happen to read vs 46 of the Gospel of Thomas, "From Adam to John the Baptist", I think he bleieved Adam was realHmmmm, lets see, no historical or factual information to corroborate in its contents and its dated between 200 and 250 AD. I cant imagine why it was rejected can you? Ok, lets move it from the National Enquirer to the Globe.The NT and its individual books usually carry with them a certain amount of historical, archeological and verifiable information that the Gnostic Gospels and the Nag Hammadi (or as we say in Alabama, the "Nag hamidy") cannot boast. This is one of the "main" reasons they are considered as reliable.Even the dates of many of the suprious books give them away as nothing more that feeble attempts at copy cat reproductions. The earliest documents and that which can be traced throught the earliest followers writings is usually the most reliable, even if you do not believe in the Holy Spirits watchful eye. Then why do you keep questioning weather the HS had a hand in the process, if it is obvious that the"authors" did? If we are discussing what they had to say, would that not include the Holy Spirit. This is not rocket science AM. By being remotley resonable and atleast alittle objective. Did you not agree, atleast with the fact, that from a sriptural standpoint that Jesus promised the comforter to guide them into all truth and show them things to come? Was it not Christs words in Rev to the Apostle John, "write these things down" The passages that could be quoted or cited at this point would be to numeous to mention. However, the ones that come immediatley to my attention would those that Christ used to assure his followers that if "God so clothes the flower of the field, will he not do much more for you", etc Secondly would be any of the Great commissions that extencd the Gospel to all people, included in this is the promise of the Gospel was the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles and thier follwers into all truth. Do you think the Apostles were an island unto themselves? What would be the pourpose of giving a commission that involved only themselves? "And lo I am with you even unto the end of the world". Acts 2 "They" continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, in the breaking of bread and prayer. Now I wonder who "they" were and where the Apostles got this "doctrine"?Here are some others, Luke 11:13, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?""This spake he of the Holy Spirit, which "those that believe on him should recieve", as it was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified, John7:39. AM writes:AM, thanks for this honest admission, however, I doubt that you could not have "any idea", weather Jesus was real or not, with so much overwhelming evidence at hand.Humility is a fine quality AM but the reality of the situation is that you do believe you are "right", regardless or wheather you believe you posess all the facts or not. If you did not you would not be defending your positon so vehemently.your responses are as equally important to me as well, thanks. Good enough. The truth is however, that almost anything could be viewed as figurative, literal, poetic or fiction. I would think that one would have to view more than the story or narrative itself to gather these facts. If you choose to view it as a wisdom poem then it will convey a whole different meaning otherwise, correct?But by all means we can see what your estimations are from this perspective. You have been already I agree, but you will need to be tolerant of others objections to your interpretations. Dont get distracted or discouraged when we come at you forcefully. I dont think ole ICANT will show to much mercy in this area, as I suspect he is an ole straight forward knowlegable grouchin these matters. All I am saying is just be prepared and tolerant.Tolerant: "lack of oppositions for beliefs or practices differing from one's own" Hey, I am just qouting the dictionary, haha. The whaaaambulance will be at your house around noon, if you pass out from writing, ha ha , see you in a while, should I bring flowers to the hospital?Off the topic at hand. In the thread "Is Jesus the Circular Messiah", I would like to know what YOURs, ICANTS and JAYWILLS response to message 35 of Modulous argument would be. how would you respond to his argument in that instance, if you have the time. IANO is doing a fine Job, I would just be interested in yalls comments on such a subjective point. Not from the actuality of Jesus or not, simply as an argument in reality. If dont have the time that is fine as well.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Thanks for your question you presented and I would suggest that you go back and rehearse all the information we have covered on that topic on numerous posts already. We spent several posts discussing that question, I presented numerous articles and information in response to that questionSimply put however, all the information and indications would indicate he was the author, there is no "good" reasons to believe he was not.
Further, as this discussion goes it is irrelevant who the author was, as I have asked AM if the Eden narrative has ever been discovered apart from the book of Genesis or if it has always been a part of that book. He has avoided this quesion like a plauge. If it has always been a part of that book and no emperical evidence can be presented that it has not, it would follow that the author was the same, more than likely, correct? Since you love emperical data so much. that author whoever it was, did not view it as a poem in later writings.
On the topic at hand between myself and AM, the authorship is not what is the exact point at present. I would be happy for you to follow along in "context" of our discussion if you wish, that would be great and at a future date, we can discuss that issue again.In fairness to you however, feel free to respond to what I have said here, I simply do not want to get to far off subject, OK?Sound like a good idea to you?Hows that for a response AM?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.